Third party? More like ten or twelve! I was gobsmacked when I saw how many presidential candidates were on my ballot who I haven't heard of.
If the US had a single transferable vote system then you could comfortably vote for a third party, if you wanted to, without helping out the opponent you dislike the most.
You just rank the candidates, so you could rank Jill Stein as 1 if you want, then Harris as 2, and Trump below that. So then if Stein has fewer votes than Harris and Trump each have (likely) then her votes would transfer to whoever her voters ranked 2nd.
Under this system, a third party candidate is more likely to win (maybe you don't like Jill Stein, but conceivably a third party could produce a good candidate). The ballot under this system looks like this:
For political accomplishments, she did managed to get invited to meeting with putin. You can't be just anybody. You have to give it to her.
As for the qualifications, trump showed us that you can do it at your own leisure, nobody will fire you if you won't do it.
She has a rich list of accomplishments! Like being a Russian asset
Lists of accomplishments?
Being only relevant a few months during election season.
Mathematical likelihood of winning:
Having a president from a political party that has no representatives or senators or judges is going to be an exercise in futility.
Takes a real and TRULY out of touch individual to drop "monotonicity paradox" with ZERO attempt at offering context to the reader - either this is an actual thing (in which case you're an asshole) or it's a full on fabrication (which would make you a liar).
Behavior, like what you've demonstrated here, is a phenomena all too easily explained by the Hammersmith Bongo Reversal, it's supercilious proxy darvents and various derivative hyper dogmas.
Various political parties could compete to displace the Republicans with more representative electoral systems. voters could choose their preferred candidates while still counting their votes against the Republican party, even if their choice doesn't win, all without the spoiler effect. Since voting methods are determined at the state level, federal reforms aren't necessary; some states have already implemented changes. For example, Alaska recently opted for a more moderate conservative over Sarah Palin thanks to ranked-choice voting.
Who would oppose multiple opportunities to weaken Republican influence? The Democratic Party. In blue states, they could replace the First Past The Post system with one that eliminates the spoiler effect. Yet, time and again, Democrats remain inactive on passing state-level electoral reforms in the states they control.
Meanwhile, Republicans are working to safeguard FPTP voting in red states. Why do Democrats continue to use a system favored by Republicans? Why arent they searching for an alternative to FPTP voting? It's not that Democrats are unaware of the flaws in the voting system. Mentioning a third-party candidate to any Democrat will quickly reveal their in depth understanding of these mathematical flaws in the voting system. particularly concerning the Green Party apparently.
If Democrats understand the problem with the voting system, but refuse to address it, it suggests they prefer a tenuous balance over a potential rise of authoritarianism rather than genuinely competing for our votes. They seem more willing to allow the country to drift toward authoritarianism than to engage on an even playing field.
It appears to be party over country, regardless of the consequences.
Embraced by Dick Cheney.
Tough on the border
Pro-Police
Wants the most lethal fighting force in the world
Committed to Israel. (Genocide)
Wants a Republican in their cabinet
You don't hate the Republicans as much as you pretend you do. I'll be voting third party. I don't support Republicans, including ones with (D) next to their name.
